I dont agree with most of what this guy says because he breaks out things like weight, height, and reach, and then wraps them in a convincing argument based on statistics.

The problem is that all of these factors work together, not seperately. Weight isnt interdependant of athleticism, height etc. Size doesnt matter if there is no talent behind it.

Wladimir K may have a great record against opponents who outweigh him but that doesnt change the fact that MANY of todays HWs come into the ring 20+ pounds over weight. If these guys came into the ring in great shape would he still be outweighed? Of the smaller guys like Adameck that the K brothers faced how many have bulked up "unnaturally" i.e. roids? Can we really compare a 216 pound Adameck (who was a natural LHW) to a 214 Ali (who actually trained down to that weight)?

This also doesnt take in to account the fact that in earlier eras there were far more boxers, far more gyms, far more fights, and far more trainers. Meaning that a lot more fighters developed a lot more well rounded fundamental boxing skills. Nowadays most fighters have no plan B. How many times have we seen a fighter who looks great fighting against one style of opponent and then looks horrible against something else. In the old days there were enough fighters, and trainers that guys got to fight or spar against movers, brawlers, bangers, boxers, leftys, rightys, tall guys, short guys, strong guys, quick guys. In short they were well schooled.

Today's fighters are carefully matched to avoid any surprises and when they are surprised it usually means a loss. Nevermind the fact that most fighters have won a championship before theyve ever even had a difficult fight.

I dont have a problem with the K brothers. You cant do more than beat the best of your time and theyve been doing that. But to compare this time to eras past is ridiculous. Its become more and more obvious, and frankly more accepted that while a lot of other sports have progressed in many ways, boxing has actually regressed over the last twenty plus years.

"The boxers with the best records of the past were all around 6'2" and/or somewhat chubby (Muhammad Ali, Larry Holmes, Joe Frazier, Mike Tyson, Evan Fields, Rocky Marciano, Nikolay Valuev, Primo Carnera). Throughout the history of boxing these were the 2 winning factors: Chubbiness and/or 6'2"-ishness.

It's only now (= with the advent of Lennox Lewis and the Klitschkos) that for the first time in boxing history tall+athletic boxers rule the division. That's basically a combination never seen before."

"The boxers with the best records of the past were all around 6'2" and/or somewhat chubby (Muhammad Ali, Larry Holmes, Joe Frazier, Mike Tyson, Evan Fields, Rocky Marciano, Nikolay Valuev, Primo Carnera). Throughout the history of boxing these were the 2 winning factors: Chubbiness and/or 6'2"-ishness.

It's only now (= with the advent of Lennox Lewis and the Klitschkos) that for the first time in boxing history tall+athletic boxers rule the division. That's basically a combination never seen before."

'Nuff said.

I didnt see that quote. Now thats funny. I wish I were as "chubby" as some of those guys.

I dont agree with most of what this guy says because he breaks out things like weight, height, and reach, and then wraps them in a convincing argument based on statistics.

The problem is that all of these factors work together, not seperately. Weight isnt interdependant of athleticism, height etc. Size doesnt matter if there is no talent behind it.

Wladimir K may have a great record against opponents who outweigh him but that doesnt change the fact that MANY of todays HWs come into the ring 20+ pounds over weight. If these guys came into the ring in great shape would he still be outweighed? Of the smaller guys like Adameck that the K brothers faced how many have bulked up "unnaturally" i.e. roids? Can we really compare a 216 pound Adameck (who was a natural LHW) to a 214 Ali (who actually trained down to that weight)?

This also doesnt take in to account the fact that in earlier eras there were far more boxers, far more gyms, far more fights, and far more trainers. Meaning that a lot more fighters developed a lot more well rounded fundamental boxing skills. Nowadays most fighters have no plan B. How many times have we seen a fighter who looks great fighting against one style of opponent and then looks horrible against something else. In the old days there were enough fighters, and trainers that guys got to fight or spar against movers, brawlers, bangers, boxers, leftys, rightys, tall guys, short guys, strong guys, quick guys. In short they were well schooled.

Today's fighters are carefully matched to avoid any surprises and when they are surprised it usually means a loss. Nevermind the fact that most fighters have won a championship before theyve ever even had a difficult fight.

I dont have a problem with the K brothers. You cant do more than beat the best of your time and theyve been doing that. But to compare this time to eras past is ridiculous. Its become more and more obvious, and frankly more accepted that while a lot of other sports have progressed in many ways, boxing has actually regressed over the last twenty plus years.

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
What do you think?

It may be interesting but it is all *******s like the BS the Klitlickers on general spout, going on about size and evolution, forgetting simple fundamentals of the sport.

I had an argument in a bar with a Neo Nazi clown a few months ago spouting the exact same arguments, trying to tell me that Vitali would KO Ali in 3, even that David Haye was better than Ali. He qualified this by saying he used to box at which point I told him he must have been a very **** boxer who clearly did not know **** about boxing.

There is no reasoning with people like these because it all boils down to the underlying agenda which is about hate of other races.

So to the op, don't bother with this because it is *******s and no not the dog's *******s just *******s.

Do you comprehend my entire post or are you being stupid?
In answer to your question no of course not.
I am merely pointing out the internal logic of certain individuals with an agenda.
If you don't understand I'm sorry I cannot help you. If you are trying to say that the website in question does NOT have an agenda and you do not see similarities with certain posters on the general forum then again I can't join the dots for you.

If you can't see it might help if you take your finger off your forehead as that is clearly blocking your vision.